US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 162 of 188 · 5,620 total
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent are unpatentable for obviousness and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 7,8,11,12,14,15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable under §§103 and 102, finding the asserted prior art taught each limitation. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges the PTAB’s finding of privity with its subsidiary Lectrosonics, seeking to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process rights.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones has filed a Director Review petition asking the PTAB to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s microphone patent, arguing the Board erred in finding privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics. The petition contends that parent‑subsidiary relationships do not satisfy the Taylor exceptions used to bar the challenge.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom submitted a corrected response in IPR2025‑00231, fixing a misquoted exhibit reference and asking the Board to remove the earlier filing. No substantive changes were made to the arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE microphones’ request for Director review of the termination of IPR 2025‑00231 was denied. The Board affirmed that Lectrosonics is a privy of RØDE, satisfying the §315(b) time‑bar and correctly applying Taylor exceptions.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. They argue the Board ignored Guidance, settled expectations, and failed to rule on a motion to terminate, warranting denial of institution.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones files a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s finding of privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics, arguing the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process. The petition seeks vacatur of the institution and dismissal of the IPR against Zaxcom’s ’902 patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with new claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition challenging Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent. The petitioner contends that all 14 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics filed a corrected request for Director Review to fix a citation error and seek dismissal of an IPR against Zaxcom’s patent. No substantive changes were made to the original arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable for obviousness or anticipation, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26. The Board’s claim constructions favored the petitioner’s broader interpretations.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious or anticipated over prior art such as Strub, Nagai, Gleissner, Woo, and Wood, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with narrower substitute claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger had not shown a more‑likely‑than‑not chance of unpatentability for any of the seven claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s ’612 NAND‑flash memory patent, finding the challenger’s unpatentability arguments unpersuasive.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges Zaxcom’s 7,711,443 patent, arguing that prior IPR invalidations render the claim unpatentable and that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors. The petition seeks denial of the patent owner’s request for Director review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Zaxcom's microphone patent (7,929,902). The institution rulings therefore remain in force.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Director Review requests have been filed for three IPRs involving Rode Microphones and Zaxcom’s wireless microphone patent. Rode must respond within five business days with a brief, issue‑limited filing.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones’ request for Director Review of the vacated institution and dismissal of IPR2025‑00231 involving Zaxcom’s patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑8 of LifeNet Health’s 11,318,227 patent covering electrospun collagen scaffolds. They argue obviousness and anticipation based on Huang2, Kuo, and Lee, and request institution of the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of Zaxcom’s ’207 patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB decisions.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet successfully secured institution in this IPR against LifeNet Health's '223 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims related to collagen scaffolds with specific FFT analysis characteristics are unpatentable over prior art references like Huang2 and Lee.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB Institute Decision granted trial for Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics against Zaxcom regarding wireless audio recording systems. The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural hurdles related to parallel district court litigation.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR institution against Zaxcom's audio recording patents, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that the combination of Strub and Woo renders the claimed synchronization methods obvious under § 103.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.